Opponents of same-sex marriage resist it because it amounts to redefining marriage, but also because it will invite future redefinitions. If we embrace same-sex marriage, they argue, society will have surrendered any reasonable grounds on which to continue forbidding polygamy, for example.

In truth, proponents of same-sex marriage have never offered a very good response to this concern. This problem was highlighted at the Supreme Court last month in oral argument over Californias Proposition 8, the state constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman.

Personally speaking, I have never understood how anyone who has already crossed the line of thinking that the gender requirements of one male to one female are "irrelevant" to constituting a marriage would have any problem with voluntary polygamy involving the liberal mantra called "consenting adults".

There is NO LOGIC to their arguments. Any MAN can marry any WOMAN that will have him.....and vice versa. So much for the ‘equal protection’ clause. I am waiting for one of the proponents to put his/her fingers in their ears and stamp their feet in front of the Supreme Court. Near as I can tell, they want what they want and don't care about anything else, so there! And you better do what they want or you are A) homophobic, B) a bully or both! Oh wait, I forgot racist.

2
posted on 04/22/2013 5:11:35 PM PDT
by originalbuckeye
(Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy)

Problem is polygamy has been practiced and accepted longer then sodomy. If liberals are willing to accept sodomy, then their feminists cannot argue against polygamy. IMHO polygamy will offer economy of scale, more exemptions and the head of household will benefit more financially then the traditional couple or gay couple. IRS will definitely be against this. Let us see, average income is 50,000 for a couple, a man with five working wives can have a family income of 150,000 plus six exemptions without kids. While a couple making 150,000 can get only two exemptions without kids. Plus the first wife faces competition from four new wives, the guy may be busy but he has the driver seat in such a family. Besides this will accommodate Muslims, not bad for diversity. If Muzzie men are too busy managing their five wives, they do not have time nor energy to bomb US marathons. Less stressful for bachelors. Can’t decide which girlfriend to marry, marry them all.

I am waiting for one of the proponents to put his/her fingers in their ears and stamp their feet in front of the Supreme Court. Near as I can tell, they want what they want and don't care about anything else, so there!

I'm hoping the leftist extremists will threaten to run away from home if they don't get what they want right this [fill in the blank] minute. If that magic moment arrives, I'll chip in as much as I can afford to send as many of the vermin as possible to Cuba.

...by softening its edge on some volatile social issues and altering its image as the party always seemingly "eager to go to war... We do need to expand the party and grow the party and that does mean that we don't always all agree on every issue" ... the party needs to become more welcoming to individuals who disagree with basic Republican doctrine on emotional social issues such as gay marriage... "We're going to have to be a little hands off on some of these issues ... and get people into the party," Paul said. [Rand Paul: Time for GOP to soften [immigration, gay marriage] stance]

One day after announcing on his radio show that he is "truly considering" running in 2014 for the U.S. Senate seat now held by New Jersey's Frank Lautenberg, Rivera amped up his message today in a television interview and a column on the Fox News Latino website... a moderate Republican who is fiscally conservative but also supports gay marriage and Roe v. Wade... [Geraldo Rivera declares himself a 'moderate Republican' as he eyes U.S. Senate run]

12
posted on 04/22/2013 7:24:28 PM PDT
by SunkenCiv
(Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)

Problem is polygamy has been practiced and accepted longer then sodomy.

More to the point, every thriving society throughout history, including those that accepted polygyny, has recognized the significance of a (female) wife's exclusive relationship with her (male) husband. I know of none prior to this century which have afforded such recognition to relationships which were not headed by exactly one (male) husband and at least one (female) wife.

Those who cite the bible in arguing for traditional marriage do their cause a disservice by giving same-sex "marriage" proponents a "separation of church and state" card they can play. The idea that a marriage must involve exactly one male and at least one female is as old as humanity itself, if not older (certainly many animal species mate for life, and it's doubtful they learned the behavior from mankind). It's not religion that suggests that there's a reason thriving societies that have nothing else in common recognize that a marriage must include a male and at least one female.

Incidentally, in a society where many unmarried women would have few prospects for employment other than prostitution or begging, and where the number of women desperate for a husband exceeded the number of men seeking wives, it's not hard to imagine that polygyny may have been less bad for women than any other alternative.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.